[683] Here occurs the anacolouthic clause, introduced by an acc. without a verb, which is not found in the LXX. and is probably a gloss (see above, p. 241): _The promise which I made with you in your going forth from Egypt_.
[684] Hebrew has singular, _costly thing_ or _desirableness_, חֶמְדַּת (fem, for neut.), but the verb _shall come_ is in the plural, and the LXX. has τα ἐκλεκτά, _the choice things_. See below, next page.
[685] The LXX. add a parallel clause καὶ εἰρήνην φυχῆς εἰς περιποίησιν παντὶ τῷ κτίζοντι τοῦ ἀναστῆσαι τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, which would read in Hebrew וְשַׁלְוַת נֶפֶשׁ לְחַיּוֹת כָּל־הַיֹֹּסֵד לְקוֹמֵם הַהֵיכָל הַזֶּה. On חיות Wellhausen cites 1 Chron. xi. 8, = _restore_ or _revive_.
[686] = חֶמְדַּת _longing_, 2 Chron. xxi. 2, and _object of longing_, Dan. xi. 37. It is the feminine or neuter, and might be rendered as a collective, _desirable things_. Pusey cites Cicero’s address to his wife: _Valete, mea desideria, valete_ (_Ep. ad Famil._, xiv. 2 fin.).
[687] חֲמֻדֹת plural feminine of pass. part., as in Gen. xxvii. 15, where it is an adjective, but used as a noun = _precious things_, Dan. xi. 38, 43, which use meets the objection of Pusey, _in loco_, where he wrongly maintains that _precious things_, if intended, must have been expressed by מַחֲמַדֵּי.
[688] ἥξει τὰ ἐκλεκτὰ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν. Theodore of Mopsuestia takes it as _elect persons of all nations_, to which a few moderns adhere.
[689] Augustini _Contra Donatistas post Collationem_, cap. xx. 30 (Migne, _Latin Patrology_, XLIII., p. 671).
[690] Calvin, _Comm. in Haggai_, ii. 6-9.
[691] Deut. xvii. 8 ff.: עַל־פּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ. Compare the expression כּוֹהֵן מוֹרֶה, in 2 Chron. xv. 3, and the duties of the teaching priests assigned by the Chronicler (2 Chron. xvii. 7-9) to the days of Jehoshaphat.
[692] Note that it is not _the Torah_, but _a Torah_.
[693] The nearest passage to the _deliverance_ of the priests to Haggai is Lev. vi. 20, 21 (Heb.), 27, 28 (Eng.). This is part of the Priestly Code not promulgated till 445 B.C., but based, of course, on long extant custom, some of it very ancient. _Everything that touches the flesh_ (of the sin-offering, which is holy) _shall be holy_—יִקְדַּשׁ, the verb used by the priests in their answer to Haggai—_and when any of its blood has been sprinkled on a garment, that whereon it was sprinkled shall be washed in a holy place. The earthen vessel wherein it has been boiled shall be broken, and if it has been boiled in a brazen vessel, this shall be scoured and rinsed with water._
[694] So several old edd. and many codd., and adopted by Baer (see his note _in loco_) in his text. But most of the edd. of the Massoretic text read ביד after Cod. Hill. For the importance of the question see above, p. 227.
[695] Torah.
[696] תְּמֵא נֶפֶשׁ.
[697] There does not appear to be the contrast between indirect contact with a holy thing and direct contact with a polluted which Wellhausen says there is. In either case the articles whose character is in question stand second from the source of holiness and pollution—the holy flesh and the corpse.
[698] See above, p. 245, n. 693.
[699] Pusey, _in loco_.
[700] The LXX. have here found inserted three other clauses: ἕνεκεν τὼν λημμάτων αὐτῶν τῶν ὀρθρινῶν, ὀδυνηθήσονται ἀπὸ προσώπου πόνων αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐμισεῖτε ἐν πύλαις ἐλέγχοντας. The first clause is a misreading (Wellhausen), יַעַן לִקְחֹתָם שַׁחַר for יַעַן לְקַחְתֶּם שֹׁחַד, _because ye take a bribe_, and goes well with the third clause, modified from Amos v. 10: שָׂנְאוּ בַשַּׁעַר מוֹכִיחַ, _they hate him who reproves in the gate_. These may have been inserted into the Hebrew text by some one puzzled to know what the source of the people’s pollution was, and who absurdly found it in sins which in Haggai’s time it was impossible to impute to them. The middle clause, יִתְעַנּוּ מִפְּנֵי עַצְבֵיהֶם, _they vex themselves with their labours_, is suitable to the sense of the Hebrew text of the verse, as Wellhausen points out, but besides gives a connection with what follows.